"A movie star is mythic, a movie star is like no one you've ever seen walking around in daily life... You don't see these people walking to the drug store, and the ones that you do aren't stars, they're actors."

- John Waters

Hollywood has gone through many changes in it's just-over century long history. The introduction of sync-sound, color, television and home video, each changed the basic business model of feature films, but throughout the history of film the star has been a bankable commodity. Recent years, however, have shown a decrease in the reliability of a star's box-office draw.

In a previous post I mentioned my agreement with William Goldman that Will Smith is the only true star we currently have in Hollywood. I would also say that Matt Damon is close to being a star in the true sense of the word, but not really. Matt Damon is certainly a talented actor, and he's undoubtedly famous, but celebrity is not the only ingredient necessary for true stardom.

In the heyday of the studio system, stars were recruited, cultivated and sold by the studios themselves. Inidividual actors had contracts with individual studios to make films for that studio. Studios would trade stars with each other like stocks, leasing them out to work on appropriate projects under another label, but only if the film would help boost the star's brand.

The public's access to stars was strictly controlled. Stars weren't allowed to be photographed holding alcoholic drinks or any drink that could even be interpreted as alcoholic. The celebrity press was willing to work with the studios to protect a star's public image, after all, they needed access from the studios and they needed stars to write about. They had no interest in destroying a star's bankability, while they would certainly write about a star's downfall if it happened independently of their machinations.

When anti-trust efforts dismantled the vertically integrated studio system, and when stars began garnering producer credits on their projects and became their own corporate entities, the star's relationship with the studios and the press changed forever. Stars were no longer associated with individual studios, and the studios didn't have as much interest in protecting the integrity of a star's career beyond the current project. This both liberated and hamstrung the stars. With great freedom comes great responsibility.

Many stars have taken advantage of this freedom to achieve greater control over the films they make - and greater profit participation. It isn't uncommon for a film's star to have large enough back-end participation that it erodes the profitability for everyone else involved, including the studio. Stars and their agents control which films are made to a greater degree than ever before. But perhaps our terrestrial stars, as the ones in the heavens, are brightest when they explode at the end of their lives. Unfortunately, it may be that their influence at the box office, the true definition and source of star-power, has decreased enough that they're no longer worth the price.

Today, stars aren't protected behind the screen. The distance between the stars and their audience and fans has diminished greatly. Part of the mystique of a star, and with it their super-human status, has eroded because of this proximity. Stars don't get arrested, they don't get in car accidents, they aren't seen at the grocery store. But today TMZ, Access Hollywood and paparazzi expose the intimate details of celebrity's lives in tabloids and on tv every day. Many stars conciously work with the paparazzi to ensure their prominence in the public's eye - but they run the risk of overexposure. There are celebrities famous for, well, being famous - and no other discernable reason. Celebrity seems more accessible than ever before - it's now more possible to achieve fame than ever, and more common for people to expect it for themselves.

This access has ultimately devalued the true source of star-power: box office office draw. These people aren't special any longer, and the public isn't as willing to part with $10 for a chance to see these people at the movie theater - at least not without further guarantee that the movie is going to be good. Whether you call the audience savvy or jaded, the box-office return is at higher risk. A star's job is to get a strong first weekend - the following weekends are always driven by word of mouth. But now it seems that word of mouth and the audience's expectation of the quality of entertainment offered by a film is having greater effect on the first day of a movie's theatrical run. The boffo run of Paranormal Activity isn't fueled by any stars, although it has potentially created a new star in Katie Featherston. There is less and less built-in audience for stars, which means they are worth less capital investment.

Transformers, Harry Potter, Up, The Hangover, Star Trek, Monsters vs. Aliens, Ice Age, X-Men, Night at the Museum, The Proposal - these are the ten top box-office draws of 2009. None of them are star driven, other than The Proposal(Sandra Bullock & Ryan Reynolds). Some of them have stars, many have great, talented casts. Night at the Museum features a former bona-fide star in Ben Stiller, but people went to see it because they loved the first one. Same with Transformers - say what you will about Shia LaBeouf (he was great in Even Stevens) - but he's not really a star. Megan Fox is pretty to look at, but she's not a true star, Jennifer's Body wasn't exactly a resounding success, even at slasher standards. Harry Potter was never fueled by stars, other than an outrageously popular book series. The Hangover boosted its stars' bankability rather than rely on their audience pull.

On the other side, looking at films absolutely driven by star-power: Funny People (Adam Sandler & Seth Rogan) did $70M worldwide, it's budget was $70M. That's not a success. Surrogates (Bruce Willis) did $97M with an $80M budget - also not great. And Amelia (Hillary Swank, Richard Gere & Ewan McGregor what a cast!) is tanking as I write.

We'll have to see what happens with Jim Carrey and A Christmas Carol. I expect it will pull well with a young audience - but if it's no good it won't have legs despite his immense popularity.

Ultimately, movies are driven by the almighty dollar. If stars prove they aren't worth the $20M investment in their name by making more than the investment back, producers aren't going to shell out top dollar for much longer. If that happens, the coming upheaval in Hollywood will be even greater than anyone's imagined based solely on technological changes. The end of the star system would shake the very foundations of Hollywood films in a way never seen before. It's still early to say that stars have lost their power permanently, but it's interesting to note that the star as film commodity was invented in 1910 - and 2010 may mark the beginning of the end for the tradition.

"A movie star is mythic, a movie star is like no one you've ever seen walking around in daily life... You don't see these people walking to the drug store, and the ones that you do aren't stars, they're actors."

- John Waters

Hollywood has gone through many changes in it's just-over century long history. The introduction of sync-sound, color, television and home video, each changed the basic business model of feature films, but throughout the history of film the star has been a bankable commodity. Recent years, however, have shown a decrease in the reliability of a star's box-office draw.

In a previous post I mentioned my agreement with William Goldman that Will Smith is the only true star we currently have in Hollywood. I would also say that Matt Damon is close to being a star in the true sense of the word, but not really. Matt Damon is certainly a talented actor, and he's undoubtedly famous, but celebrity is not the only ingredient necessary for true stardom.

In the heyday of the studio system, stars were recruited, cultivated and sold by the studios themselves. Inidividual actors had contracts with individual studios to make films for that studio. Studios would trade stars with each other like stocks, leasing them out to work on appropriate projects under another label, but only if the film would help boost the star's brand.

The public's access to stars was strictly controlled. Stars weren't allowed to be photographed holding alcoholic drinks or any drink that could even be interpreted as alcoholic. The celebrity press was willing to work with the studios to protect a star's public image, after all, they needed access from the studios and they needed stars to write about. They had no interest in destroying a star's bankability, while they would certainly write about a star's downfall if it happened independently of their machinations.

When anti-trust efforts dismantled the vertically integrated studio system, and when stars began garnering producer credits on their projects and became their own corporate entities, the star's relationship with the studios and the press changed forever. Stars were no longer associated with individual studios, and the studios didn't have as much interest in protecting the integrity of a star's career beyond the current project. This both liberated and hamstrung the stars. With great freedom comes great responsibility.

Many stars have taken advantage of this freedom to achieve greater control over the films they make - and greater profit participation. It isn't uncommon for a film's star to have large enough back-end participation that it erodes the profitability for everyone else involved, including the studio. Stars and their agents control which films are made to a greater degree than ever before. But perhaps our terrestrial stars, as the ones in the heavens, are brightest when they explode at the end of their lives. Unfortunately, it may be that their influence at the box office, the true definition and source of star-power, has decreased enough that they're no longer worth the price.

Today, stars aren't protected behind the screen. The distance between the stars and their audience and fans has diminished greatly. Part of the mystique of a star, and with it their super-human status, has eroded because of this proximity. Stars don't get arrested, they don't get in car accidents, they aren't seen at the grocery store. But today TMZ, Access Hollywood and paparazzi expose the intimate details of celebrity's lives in tabloids and on tv every day. Many stars conciously work with the paparazzi to ensure their prominence in the public's eye - but they run the risk of overexposure. There are celebrities famous for, well, being famous - and no other discernable reason. Celebrity seems more accessible than ever before - it's now more possible to achieve fame than ever, and more common for people to expect it for themselves.

This access has ultimately devalued the true source of star-power: box office office draw. These people aren't special any longer, and the public isn't as willing to part with $10 for a chance to see these people at the movie theater - at least not without further guarantee that the movie is going to be good. Whether you call the audience savvy or jaded, the box-office return is at higher risk. A star's job is to get a strong first weekend - the following weekends are always driven by word of mouth. But now it seems that word of mouth and the audience's expectation of the quality of entertainment offered by a film is having greater effect on the first day of a movie's theatrical run. The boffo run of Paranormal Activity isn't fueled by any stars, although it has potentially created a new star in Katie Featherston. There is less and less built-in audience for stars, which means they are worth less capital investment.

Transformers, Harry Potter, Up, The Hangover, Star Trek, Monsters vs. Aliens, Ice Age, X-Men, Night at the Museum, The Proposal - these are the ten top box-office draws of 2009. None of them are star driven, other than The Proposal(Sandra Bullock & Ryan Reynolds). Some of them have stars, many have great, talented casts. Night at the Museum features a former bona-fide star in Ben Stiller, but people went to see it because they loved the first one. Same with Transformers - say what you will about Shia LaBeouf (he was great in Even Stevens) - but he's not really a star. Megan Fox is pretty to look at, but she's not a true star, Jennifer's Body wasn't exactly a resounding success, even at slasher standards. Harry Potter was never fueled by stars, other than an outrageously popular book series. The Hangover boosted its stars' bankability rather than rely on their audience pull.

On the other side, looking at films absolutely driven by star-power: Funny People (Adam Sandler & Seth Rogan) did $70M worldwide, it's budget was $70M. That's not a success. Surrogates (Bruce Willis) did $97M with an $80M budget - also not great. And Amelia (Hillary Swank, Richard Gere & Ewan McGregor what a cast!) is tanking as I write.

We'll have to see what happens with Jim Carrey and A Christmas Carol. I expect it will pull well with a young audience - but if it's no good it won't have legs despite his immense popularity.

Ultimately, movies are driven by the almighty dollar. If stars prove they aren't worth the $20M investment in their name by making more than the investment back, producers aren't going to shell out top dollar for much longer. If that happens, the coming upheaval in Hollywood will be even greater than anyone's imagined based solely on technological changes. The end of the star system would shake the very foundations of Hollywood films in a way never seen before. It's still early to say that stars have lost their power permanently, but it's interesting to note that the star as film commodity was invented in 1910 - and 2010 may mark the beginning of the end for the tradition.